annesash (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

Ive had similar arguments a couple years ago with a "proud sceptic" friend over the years, which involved me being asked to watch a tv program to "debunk homeopathy". Typical bias, abusive jokes etc which could not be taken seriously at all. After a couple of hours of me countering every attack successfully, he gave up in disgust & has never brought it up again. Yes, I consider myself a sceptic also.I dont have any problem with homeopathy. Ive found it to be repeatedly life-saving for decades.

den151redbank (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

I feel so lucky to have found homeopathy. It is the most effective, best medicine I have ever experienced. Thanks to Dana Ullman for this series of videos.

ArcanaKnight (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

I have read the study, as well as reviews of it from a doctor whose opinions I respect very much.I never said that it was a recreation of Reilly's experiments, just that it refuted the claims in one of his studies (which it does). It was designed better than Reilly's study and showed no statistically significant effect which fits the pattern for studies on pseudosciences like homeopathy.

HomeopathicDana (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

ArcanaKnight has NOT read this study that he claims had a negative result. THAT is not true. This study was complex and was not a "replication" of the Reilly experiments (there were many differences!). Ulitimately, there were many differences in response between the treatment and the placebo groups. Sorry, guy, you're wrong here.

ArcanaKnight (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

It appears I can't post the link to the study, but the title is "Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial" and it can be found on PubMedCentral's site.

HomeopathicDana (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

ArcanaKnight is showing his/her ignorance and arrogance. Ennis' work was replicated at THREE other university laboratories. Reilly's studies were CLINICAL trials where "explanations" for the mechanism of action are NOT the point of the study. All FOUR of Reilly's studies showed efficacy of homeopathic medicines. Some skeptics simply cannot accept good scientific evidence that go against their own beliefs (a tad ironic, eh?).

ArcanaKnight (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

When replicated, Ennis's results were not confirmed, so there was probably something wrong with her test. Reilly's tests are questionable because his conclusion provided no explanation as to HOW the intervention could have possibly worked. Elliot's test wasn't double-blinded, so he could have easily skewed the results either accidentally or purposely, and he had no control group.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

den151redbank (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

ArcanaKnight,Ever the politician. If you can't match the opponent's performance, you can try to discredit him. Good luck!

mohanaturo (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

results of homeopathy sceptic Madeleine Ennis who put it to the scientific test. To her horror her tests showed it DID work, there IS a memory of water. Also Mark Elliot's trials and David Reilly's. All are scientists. All came up with positive results.

ArcanaKnight (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)

Quantum physics has nothing to do with homeopathy. Any attempt to explain homeopathic remedies in terms of quantum mechanics or quantum physics are based on misunderstandings of what those fields actually say.